MATH HAS BEEN FRUITFUL BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST SIMPLE DOMAIN “Naturalists are mot

MATH HAS BEEN FRUITFUL BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST SIMPLE DOMAIN

“Naturalists are motivated by the thought that scientific or mathematical standards are the most successful standards we possess.” -S.E.P.

This is backwards. Philosophical naturalists are skeptical about the current state of science and mathematics, just as they are about the current state of academic philosophy.

The reason math is the most successful tool we possess is that it is the SIMPLEST of the logics, because math is the tool of constant relations, almost all of which are self defined. (The more math I understand the more ridiculous I find claims about it.) (and its cheap)

The reason physics is the next most successful tool we possess is that is the next most simple tool we possess for the study of existing constant CAUSAL relations. (And it’s costly)

The reason biological (genetic) science are the next most successful tool we possess is that after physics, it is the next most simple tool we possess, and both properties and causal relations are extremely complex to determine. (it has been very costly)

The reason economics (cooperation) is less successful, is that economics does not consist of constant relations, nor CAN it consist of constant relations, nor can we collect data about it at a granular enough level, nor is it testable without altering the course of the experiment. So mathematics fails to assist us in forecasting economics, because science as structured holds to the criteria of prediction. However, it is nothing to be proud of that math and science are predictable, any more than after observing a stone rolling downhill, that further stones will run downhill, since math is the study of constant relations, and the natural world of the physical sciences, outside of evolutionary biology consists of constant relations.

We do not yet have the equivalent of a mathematics of non-constant relations sufficient to assist in forecasting rather than simply narrating, the economy. However, given that we invent the future, it is very unlikely that we can forecast anything other than the crudely obvious, most of which is in-actionable.

I would love to be proven wrong, but this appears very unlikely without some external mechanism for thinking about greater systems of causal relations than humans can perceive. Such that if we did possess this technology, and it was capable of useful prediction, it would be indistinguishable from the creation of those outcomes.